State (Delhi Administration) vs Vijay Chaudhari
2006 Latest Caselaw 1942 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a 25 years old appeal filed by the State aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent of charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 vide judgment dated 21.10.1982 passed by Sh. Bhola Dutt, then Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case vide FIR No. 1179/1980 of Police Station defense Colony.

2. As per prosecution case, the respondent at the relevant time of incident was the proprietor of fair price shop No. 4809, M/s Anand Departmental Store No. 47, Anand Lok, New Delhi. A raid was held on his shop by the officials of the Food Department on 23.10.1980 and again on 30.10.1980. At the time of raid, the officials of the Food Department found certain discrepancies in the stock at the shop of the respondent. To be precise 37 kilograms of wheat was found excess; 1 quintal 75 kilograms rice was found excess; 1.5 kilogram palm oil was found short and 11.5 kilograms of rapseed oil was found excess in the stock. On 23.10.1980 the raiding party comprising PW-2 Ravinder Dhall and PW-3 S.K. Gupta seized sale register, stock register and one cash memo from the shop of the respondent. When raid was conducted on his shop on 30.10.1980, two cash memos were seized by the officials of the Food Department. In view of these discrepancies in the stock found at his shop, the respondent was accused of violation of terms and conditions of license granted to him under Delhi Specified Food Articles (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1968. He was tried on the above allegations for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. They are PW-1 Uma Shankar, LDC in the Food & Supply Department. This witness has tendered copy of notification No. F2 (4)-68 CCR (P&D) dated 27.08.1968 amended up to March, 1980 as document Ex. P-A in his statement. PW-2 Ravinder Dhall and PW-3 S.K. Gupta were members of the raiding party. PW-4 SI Maha Singh is a police witness and he has proved the FIR Ex. PW3/1 registered against the respondent on the complaint of officials of the Food and Supply Department. PW-5 SI Rampal Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case and he has proved the steps taken by him during investigation.

4. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC and he in his said statement took a plea that he was not involved in the case and the shop under the name of M/s Anand Departmental Store is actually run by a person other than him.

5. The findings returned by learned trial court in the impugned judgment are that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent was a fair price shop holder and therefore he could not be held responsible for the alleged violation. The learned trial court further found that though 48-50 customers were present on the respondent's shop at the time of alleged raid but none of them was associated with the raid and for that reason also doubted the prosecution version against the respondent. The learned trial court further found that neither the license of the FPS No. 4809 was placed by the prosecution on record nor any witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the terms of the license. Consequently the respondent has been acquitted vide impugned judgment of the court below.

6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that the learned court below has not considered the effect of variation in the stock noticed by the officials of the Food Department on the shop of the respondent at the time of raid on 23.10.1980. He has further contended that the trial court acted erroneously in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution for not joining the public witnesses/customers present on the shop at the time of raid. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the trial court has also ignored the implied admission of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that he at the time of raid was the proprietor of ration shop. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of reasons for acquittal given in the impugned judgment.

7. On giving my anxious consideration to the rival arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I could not persuade myself to agree with any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant (State). The copy of the license, terms of which are alleged to have been violated by the respondent was admittedly not produced by the prosecution before the trial court. The prosecution also did not prove whether the respondent was holding license for running the ration shop on the date raid was held on his shop and the food items in relation to which the said license was allegedly granted to him. I am of the view that unless it was proved that the respondent was holder of license for ration shop which was valid on the date of raid, it would be difficult to hold him guilty beyond doubt for alleged violation of the provisions of the Delhi Specified Food Articles (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1968. I draw strength for my said view from two judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, one of Single Judge in the case of Vimal Chand v. State of M.P. reported as 1995(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Cases 220 and the second judgment is of the Division Bench in case titled as State v. Gangaram and Anr. reported as AIR 1953 M.B. 244.

8. The discrepancies in the stock noticed by the officials of the food department at the time of alleged raid is of no consequence unless the prosecution proves that the respondent was holder of a valid license for running the ration shop on the date raid was held at his shop. This is an appeal taken up for hearing after more than 25 years of the incident and at this stage, it would not be safe to convict the respondent of the charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of the Delhi Specified Food Articles (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1968 as there are inherent weaknesses in the prosecution case as mentioned above.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned acquittal of the respondent recorded by the court below that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Hence this appeal is dismissed.